In this last legislative session, the one that turned out to be pretty terrible for both abortion providers and family planning clinics, Arlington state Representative Bill Zedler had a dream. That dream, as we told you about at the time, was to require women and their doctors fill out and submit to the state detailed questionnaires about their abortions, a laundry list of information that included details about the woman's educational history, previous abortions, her method of contraception, the reason for the abortion, how she was paying for it and the age of the father of her fetus, among other things. (It was, admittedly, sort of an odd dream.) And although the bill he authored to create that questionnaire failed, the reporting requirements now appear to be quietly creeping back to life.

To refresh, Zedler, who is a "no abortion even in cases of rape or incest" kind of guy, authored a bill, HB 1602 , that proposed both the abortion reporting form, as well as a second document, which reported any complications from an abortion. The bill also suggested criminal penalties for doctors who failed to submit the reports, submitted false information or who performed an abortion on a woman who was being coerced into having the procedure.

The bill ultimately died in committee, but suddenly, as former Observer-er Andrea Grimes reports over on RH Reality Check , Zedler's goals are being revived in another form. The Department of State Health Services told a group of abortion providers in Austin last week the agency is collecting public comment on "updated reporting requirements." Why? Because Zedler asked them to.

Grimes reports that the meeting was called to update a group of providers, clinic workers and pro-choice activists on a few things: the implementation of the new mandatory sonogram law, the exclusion of Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Women's Health Program, and, as a DSHS rep, Renee Clack, put it, "some amendments the department has included that specifically relate to a request by Representative Zedler." Although Zedler's bill didn't pass, DSHS staffers told the group, the department still has the authority to change the reporting requirements, and now they've decided to do so.

"The draft language we presented at the meeting is a starting-off point," says DSHS rep Carrie Williams, "and entirely open for discussion at this point." Those proposed requirements aren't quite as lengthy as the ones Zedler proposed; they merely ask, among other things, for the type of abortion procedure performed, the period of gestation, the date of the patient's last menstrual period, her previous live births and abortions, her educational level, the method of pregnancy verification and the method used to dispose of "fetal tissue and remains."

Williams confirms that the department started looking at new requirements at Zedler's request, but insists that's not the only reason. "We did agree to take a look at it and we do have the authority to do it," she told us. "But we also believe that there could be real value in gathering additional information, and the value is in the regulatory perspective it can provide, and also the trend analysis."

Basic biographical information is already collected from each patient, and abortion facilities are already required to report complications that result in a third-trimester or emergency abortion. That's the type of data that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asks for from each state for the center's abortion-reporting statistics. Until this year, Texas hasn't seen fit to change the requirements at all.

According to Deva Cats-Baril, a doula-in-training and pro-choice activist who attended the meeting, the providers wanted to know what specifically was meant by "complication" and why these requirements were suddenly being changed now. Several also were worried they were being asked to divert clinic resources away from patient care and towards producing more paperwork. Cats-Baril fears that such requirements are meant to "intimidate small and mid-level clinics and hospitals from providing abortion care."

But Williams says the new data wouldn't compromise patient privacy and couldn't be used to target physicians in any way. "State law does not allow release of abortion data in such a way that a patient, doctor or facility could be identified," she told us. "We can't and don't release information with that level of detail. We could share general data -- such as the annual number of complications reported to DSHS -- but only if it cannot lead to the identity of the patient, doctor or facility."

Williams adds that providers and the public are free to send their comments on the new requirements to the department; at the meeting, providers were told to contact Amy Harper at the regulatory licensing unit at 512-834-6730.The final draft of the updated requirements will be presented at the DSHS council meeting on June 14.

We Recommend

I'm too pissed and tired and full of wine to read all the comments so if this has laready been said...... If dipshit here wants details of my abortion (IF it ever happened), then he HAS to also hear details of my period, every month. It's only fair. They want to dictate what happens with our vajayjays and uteruses (uteri?) then they can learn ALL about them, every cramping damn detail.

How about a protest outside his home or office? It is time to fight back these "Tal-i-ban-Reoub-li-can's" to get thier noses out of our private affairs. All what I hear about Bill Zedler make him out to be a pervert and religious nut case.

This is the worst example of baseless agenda driven "journalism" that I have seen in quite a while. I'm sure that your ideology and the rest of your fawning co-sympathizers is different from Zedler, but why not at least do a rudimentary fact check and /or provide some reasonable documentation to support your premises. I really can't see any examples of TDH supporting indigent women's causes, especially after the incident (2011) in which they paid a suprise "raid" on a woman's clinic in Grapevine last year fining the docs for using lower priced- but otherwise technically identical to US manufactured-Canadian IUDs in an effort to extend health care dollars for care of uninsured women needing contraception. Wake up ! This probably came about because, while researching his bill, Zedler found out the state health dept didn't even have comprehensive statistics regarding abortion services. This is all about the "regulatory perspective that (the data) can provide" according to TDH Carrie Williams --to quote your own article-- in other words how the power hungry bureaucrats in Austin can exert more control over you and your provider. The means of data collected and the nature of the data is entirely up to the TDH bureaucrats who are collecting it. You are so obsessed with your anti-Zedler campaign, you don't even recognize who the real enemy is. Pathetic.

Abortion may be the topic of the day but FELLOW MEN .A WOMAN INTERESTED IN HER REPRODUCTIVE FREED0OM MEANS SHE WANTS TO FOOL AROUND AS MUCH AS YOU DO If this Dip Sh*t and some of friends have their way about abortion and contraception the only kind of sex some for you young guys will be with Rosy Palm and her five sisters !

With out any contraception which is where we are heading.with his bunch . Waiting for the chance to get lucky will be tense . But the real anxiety will be waiting to find out if any of the little swimmers found an egg.

You young folks of either sex do not want to go back to the Very Bad Old days.

So this really is about us ...MEN.

Well you youngsters because thanks to eugenics okay tied tubes the reproductive years at Townie house ceased years ago .

It takes some pretty convoluted "logic" to get Zedler attached to this screed. If you take the time to analyse the facts within the article, it sounds like the Texas Dept of Health Services should be in your crosshairs-- but since they are a bunch of make work "job protectionist" agenda driven Austinite Liberals--I guess that you had to find someone else to pick on.

Remember earlier today when my fellow Republicans were strongly against overreaching, unelected bureaucrats imposing their will on the people without the consent of the people or their elected representatives?

I wish he could rechannel this obsession with fetuses into an obsession into help for poor women. If the assistance wasn't so paltry they could probably afford to keep their unborn children. Oh but welfare is bad!

Yeah, go ahead, make Zedler's day. I can't wait for him to sue you and Dallas Observer for harassment and libel respectively! If you would bother to read the article and some of the non-a**kissing commentary, I think that you might find that the out of control TDH is the real problem here.

They seem Kind of like our home office types who roll out to the hinder lands when they want to seem very busy around budget time .A GOOD Bureaucrat will know how to serve who ever controls the purse strings Or make a Dang good show of it . At least that is my take on it .

1) He is a public official-and as a public official (elected at that) I doubt that anything that I have stated would be grounds for liable or slander. The bar is high for elected officials-just look at some of the inane/stupid comments that the Republican’ts are constantly making toward President Obama on a regular basis.2) The bar for public protest is rather high is it not?-just look at what the Westburo Baptist Church and what the anti choice “Tal-i-ban-Repub-li-cans” get away with in terms of their protests –Oh but I forgot they are more equal than the rest of us-they are special-they have a direct link to the almighty (or so they think) so the rest of us should shut up and put on our burkas. 3) The TDH is being egged on by the likes of Zedler, Dan Patric, and Rick Perry to name just a few. One should not neglect those who are pulling the strings in terms of hearing our protests.4) I seem to recall that Zedler has been in the news before-and suffered comments by Mister Mean and others and no law suits have resulted. Now if we were in the Middle East (like the “Tal-i-ban-Repub-li-cans” long for) and/or we were under a Christian form of Sharia Law then…….Ah but Mullah Rick Santorum is fading from the public scene (until Tampa) …. But it does seem that many state legislatures in their “war on woman” seem intent on pushing this Christian form of Sharia law so we had better speak up.

And of course the Texas Dept of Health like all Texas bureaucracies especially the Texas Medical Board etc. does EXACTLY what the all powerful "creepy" Mr. Zedler tells them to do. Right! (LOL). (These "public service" agencies have been on their own agendas for years)

Couldn't agree more. As Vagina-Americas, though, we have to know that people like PlanoDave are MUCH better qualified to make big decisions like what goes between -- and comes out from between -- our legs. We women really are just too flighty and excitable. Thank god for Plano Dave and his Wonder Horse. Where would we wimmin folk be without brave, bold, decisive meanfolk like him and his'n?

Hundreds of abused or "set-on fire" animals in Pleasant Grove will also thank you (if "poor" women.. won't have children they can't afford to have much less raise). --But for heaven's sake let's not stop the "free stuff".

The TDH is interested in extending their powers of regulatory control. They don't answer to anybody, much less Zedler, unless the Texas legislature by majority vote decides to investigate or amend their powers (and the Governor approves). That rarely happens. May be you might consider some other more worthwhile "protest"....

OK. Did you not read the many, many other posts where I mentioned that I'm a lifelong Republican? Just because a Republican does stupid things doesn't mean I have to support them (and making a big deal out of some Democratic pundit noting that maybe a woman who never had to work to make ends meet for her family might not have a whole lot in common with working mothers who have to go to work, whether they want to or not, just to keep the lights on and food on the table).

And I still don't think it's right to call women sluts just because they support insurance companies paying for health care services. Mr. Romney didn't take offense to calling that particular woman a slut (eventually, he said he would have used different words), so my assumption is that he thinks it's perfectly okay, unlike his great offense at daring to say that a wealthy woman who has chosen not to work outside the home might not have a lot in common with working families where both parents have to work to keep food on the table.

So, I have to assume that, in Mr. Romney's world, it's okay to call women sluts for saying that their friends need access to birth control for medical reasons but not okay for saying that wealthy woman who choose not to work outside the home may not be able to relate to working woman who can't make such a choice.

Therefore, it would have been okay to call Mrs. Romney a slut.

Personally, I, like Mitt Romney sometimes, have no problem with women making whatever choices that work for them and their families. If a woman can stay home with her kids and take care of her family in that way, then more power to them. Unlike Mitt Romney, I don't find staying home with children to lack dignity, and I'm unsure why, if Mitt Romney believes that women who don't work should have the dignity of work even if the state forces them to in order to receive various benefits, he didn't have a problem with his own wife staying home.

In the most recent phase of the pathetic desperate Democrat war on women Ms. Rosen got thrown under the bus by Axelrod, Ms. Obama, and our fearless "let's raise the level of discourse" leader, after their for-hire mercenary Rosen shot herself in the V*gina by calling every stay at home mom and woman with breast cancer and MS a parasite who couldn't relate to "working women". Ironically, the DNC constituency is composed of hopeless masses who "never worked a day in their lives" because you enlightened liberals keep them trapped on the govt welfare plantation for generations. The only time that the DNC cares about the non working masses is at election time.You, Suburban Idiot (how perfectly apt ) in your extreme eloquence and thoughtful refinement, constitute an entire second front in the Democrat war on women.

So, once again, we find that, as long as someone has the same political party as you do, you don't care about the actual things they do. It can always be justified in your own mind.

Whatever happened to having actual core beliefs? Whatever happened for being consistent in one's belief. This moral relativism that's apparently taken over my Republican Party is quite sickening.

Stand up for something. Don't just blow in the wind. Just because the guy has a little "R" beside his name doesn't mean that every time he sells out what are supposed to be core Republican values, it's perfectly okay.

We shouldn't all be Mitt Romneys and George H.W. Bushes. We should stand for something other than "Whatever Obama or some other liberal does is wrong and whatever any Republican does, even if it's the same exact thing, is absolutely right."

Well actually, -- I know that this will vex you but--- Abortion rates and trends DO count as life and death statistcs. The choice of information obtained and ( way in which it is gathered), seems to be being made by the TDH( female )employees cited and quoted in this article. I guess that female state employees in liberal Austin are having a "war on women".(lol)

So, he introduced a bill. It failed. He then went to the unelected bureaucrats that oversee this sort of thing and, according to those involved, asks them to consider requiring through their regulatory rulemaking the very thing that his failed bill would have required.

Somehow those two events are completely unrelated in your mind and to link them is using convoluted logic?

The fact that the unelected bureaucrats decided to implement part of his request certainly is their choice, but 1. he went against every stated Republican ideal and asked a group of unelected bureaucrats to require information that he couldn't get required through the Legislative process, and 2. at least part of the reason they went along with it is because he, not some unrelated think tank, etc., directly asked them to after his attempt to work this through the legislature and the rule of law failed.

So, he's either a RINO or a hypocrite, at the very least. And he seems to want a large amount of personal information from women seeking medical procedures, which is certainly not in line with the freedom-loving, get the government out of our health care and our lives attitude that tends to prevail in the Republican Party that I've considered myself a member of ever since I was about five and decided that Jimmy Carter guy seemed like a nut to me.

I don't think Zedler gives a flip about the Dallas Observer's convoluted logic and I am pretty sure given their "slow to no response" track record at the state bureaucracy level he would be amazed.. as am I... that they selectively decided to "get involved" this time . You do realize, (don't you?) that constituents and neutral bodies such as "think tanks" etc. ask their (and other) State Reps/Senators to look into hundreds of issues and/ or seek relevent statistical data with governmental and other agencies during any given term.

I don't want to tell you what to do with your body. Frankly, I'm just sick of this "war on women" shit and I'm more concerned with other issues. If you could break away from this obsessive vagina-gazing you might find out that there are a lot of issues out there that affect everybody, not just the ones with vajayjays.

The poor 4 month old puppy died last night from 2nd and third degree burns. Who will stand up for the defenseless creatures in our midst? Oh ya, I forgot let's all agonize about the polar bear population and other abstract liberal agenda driven c*ap like that.Maybe when they find the "kids" who did this, the mayor pro-tem will give them the key to the city and Obama will call them when they get out of jail. Pathetic.

"Raising" might actually encompass taking the time to instruct your kids right from wrong, or actually acknowledging that they are your responsibility, not mine, to "support"-- in the economic and "nurturing" sense...